Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) | Hansard source

I thank the member for Solomon for his service as a distinguished and decorated Australian Army officer. I know he understands that the home of the soldier is at Kapooka, where he served. The long line of khaki that stretches from Gallipoli right through to the front gates at Blamey Barracks, right through to the present day, is an important thing—not just for our nation, but for the world. It is Australian soldiers, Australian aviators, Australian sailors and Australian peacekeepers who are relied upon so much to keep the peace, ensure democracy and give help where help is most needed. We do that in times of conflict and we do that in times of peace, and we do it very well—best in the world, I would argue.

I listened to the member for Solomon very closely and deliberately. He pointed out the backlogs in the Department of Veterans' Affairs and what the government is doing to address that. I would ask, quite earnestly and genuinely: if in fact Labor is so much better at ensuring that the DVA is well resourced, why, oh, why were more than 100 positions cut from the DVA in the federal budget in May? It doesn't matter how you sugarcoat this, it was still more than 100 positions taken from an important organisation providing help, support and service to veterans.

I would also ask: if the changes that were announced in the budget to the allied health provisions for our veterans were so necessary, so right and so proper, why is there white-hot anger in the veterans community about the $5,000 cap? If there isn't such a cap and it is making it better, easier and more efficient for veterans to receive services, why are the veterans arcing up so strongly against it? That's a genuine question. Maybe it's not been explained well enough by the minister, who, I might add, gave a very fine speech at the Parliamentary Friends of Veterans event this morning at which the Veteran and Family Wellbeing Agency was established.

I commend the minister for this agency. I acknowledge his appointment of Brendan Cox as the inaugural chief executive for the Veteran and Family Wellbeing agency. I'm not just saying it here. I said it on Sky News earlier. I mentioned the fact that I said to Minister Keogh that he gave a very eloquent address. Where praise is needed, I will certainly be the first to give it. I commend him for that address that he gave this morning in the Senate courtyard.

I also acknowledge Mr Cox's years of service. He fought in Bosnia with British forces and also served in East Timor and Afghanistan as an outstanding Australian Army representative, somebody who is a Churchill fellow. That's how well credentialed Mr Cox is. That Churchill Fellowship, which was awarded in 2022, was to create a model of care for families supporting a veteran suffering psychological and/or physical injury. He investigated and evaluated examples of international best practice—having served with British forces as well as Australia's, he would certainly know this—in providing holistic support to defence families supporting a veteran with physical and psychological injuries as a result of their defence service.

Like the member for Solomon, I too had a very, very good meeting today with the Veteran Family Commissioner, Annabelle Wilson. It was 11 months ago today that she was appointed to that position. She too, like Mr Cox, is an outstanding human being. She is a widow. Her husband passed away. He was a member of the Australian Defence Force. We mourn her loss but we celebrate the fact that she is doing something as a legacy for her husband, her family, herself and the wider veteran community to bring about good change. Her roles and responsibilities include championing equity and accessibility for all veteran families, identifying systemic issues and advocating for reform, removing barriers to lasting change, escalating individual cases needing further attention and providing evidence based policy advice informed by lived experience. I can tell you she loves policy. I think she'd actually make an outstanding parliamentarian. I really do. As well, she's building strong partnerships through stakeholder engagement. She's doing all of that and so much more. She's produced a very good paper just in the time that she's been in the role since 18 August. She was appointed on 1 August 2025 and began work a few weeks later, and she's getting on with the job.

The Defence Legislation Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 2) Bill 2026 will be supported by the coalition, and it will be supported for these reasons. It directly implements 15 recommendations of the royal commission. Let us not forget that it was the coalition who introduced the royal commission, who ensured that it began. I know that when the royal commission came to Wagga Wagga it heard some harrowing evidence, and not just in Wagga Wagga, where we've got tri-service. We've got the Kapooka Army Recruit Training Centre. We've got Airpower starting at Wagga Wagga; it says so on the hangar facing the airport, the Royal Australian Air Force having been established there during the Second World War, if not before. And we've got 80 personnel serving in the Navy. It's a long way from the nearest drop of seawater, but we've got a very visible and active RAN presence in inland Wagga Wagga. Who would have thought? But it's strategic, it's good, it's proper, and those men and women are playing a fine role in the ADF.

The objectives of this bill are to strengthen the health, wellbeing and safety of our personnel. They are objectives that each and every one of us would wholeheartedly agree with. We all share those values. We approach this debate, as we do anything related to the welfare and wellbeing of our veterans, with an open mind and in the spirit of constructive engagement, as the member for Herbert, who is the shadow minister for defence industry and defence personnel, said earlier today in his contribution to this bill—although he did add that our support is somewhat cautious; he used that word. He said, 'It is support predicated on the requirement that these reforms deliver genuine, tangible improvements rather than simply adding more layers of administrative complexity to a system that many servicing personnel and veterans already find difficult to navigate.' He added, 'We must ensure that this legislation is effective, proportionate and capable of delivering the improvements that are needed, recommended and promised.' Truer words could not have been uttered, because at the heart of this bill is our veterans, and they need every bit of support.

That's why yesterday, when I sat opposite those much-credentialed and fine veterans from the RSL sub-branch of Cronulla, in the electorate of the member for Cook, they said they were very concerned about the changes to the cap, as are many veterans, particularly regional Australians, for whom services are not always as readily available as they are for those who happen to live in capital cities. Certainly when it comes to psychological welfare, and also the physiological services that that have been provided, we just need to be a little bit careful about making changes and then perhaps not explaining them as well as we should have.

The government tells us—and the minister has been quite clear on this—that it will do consultation over the next 12 months. That might all be well and good, and the government may well be undertaking that consultation as we speak, or beginning to. But that consultation should have been done six months prior to the budget being handed down. This is so typical of this Labor government—that it hasn't done the consultation with stakeholders prior to bringing legislation into the House of Representatives on so many occasions. Then we're left to deal with the fallout when something is not as it should be. Either it gets through the Senate and comes back, or it doesn't pass muster in the upper house, and we're left with legislation that needs adjusting.

A classic example this week was in the online space. That legislation needed to be updated, and the minister gave a press conference and gave an explanation while introducing the amendment as to why it was necessary. She shouldn't have needed to do that, because the legislation should have been right in the first place. I realise that in many areas of endeavour and many portfolio areas sometimes it is a moving feast, but if you do the work, if you do the background, if you do the consultation, if you take stakeholders on board with you—as we did when we were in the coalition and in government for nine years, we didn't have the messes to mop up that Labor seems to be having on such a regular basis. We did not have to go back and implement amendments and strategise about how we were going to handle the fallout, because we did our work, we did our research, and we took on board so many stakeholders.

Our veterans are more important and our veterans need the very best health and wellbeing and welfare. The government shouldn't be having to provide consultation on legislation that is either before the House or in the budget. You understand it with so many of them; they are triggered by things from their service. Rest assured, many veterans are not broken. They are not—they are contributing to civil society and getting back into the community and taking up jobs and doing all the sorts of things you'd expect them to be doing. Many of our finest Australians are people who've worn the uniform, and many of them are not broken. But for those who are, we need to be there for them. They had our backs when we sent them to conflict zones; we need to have their backs when they need it the most. They need it the most right now, and they should be having a $5,000 cap on allied health. They should not be having that without it having to be explained to them as to why this is necessary and then having to justify why they need it. The minister needs to come clear on why it's necessary and explain himself a lot better than he has been.

I would also like to mention the fact that I caught up this morning with David Johnson, who has been a fine Chief of the Defence Force. He is retiring—Admiral Johnston is—after 48 years of service, and we do thank him for those 48 years of service. That is extraordinary. We welcome Vice-Admiral Mark Hammond. He has been Chief of Navy, and he is very much going to fill the role well. We need the very best people as CDF. We need the very best people in our defence forces, and aren't we lucky we have them? But when they finish their service we've got to be there for them. We've got to be, and we need to make sure that every provision of health and wellbeing is there for them.

See this speech in context